How much money was awarded in case 5099608?

Cleaning: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $262.51 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $909.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Bath Spout (Incl Part At: $721.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Downpipe: $116.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099608?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5099608?

Cleaning: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $262.51 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $909.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Bath Spout (Incl Part At: $721.43 awarded to landlord; Replace Downpipe: $116.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099608?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443276-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5099608 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5099608 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099608 — net $2,211.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$356.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: blinds	$262.51	Cleaning: blinds
Repairs: and cleaning under house	$909.65	Repairs: and cleaning under house
Repairs: replace bath spout (incl part at	$721.43	Repairs: replace bath spout (incl part at
Repairs: replace downpipe	$116.93	Repairs: replace downpipe
Repairs: repair window latch	$57.50	Repairs: repair window latch
Exemplary damages: tampering with smoke alarms	$1,500.00	tampering with smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: unauthorised occupants	$500.00	unauthorised occupants
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,211.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,211.52

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord names and identifying details and of the tenancy address.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Lena Tata must pay [The landlord/s] $2,211.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing in person. The tenant did not attend. The Tribunal may continue a hearing in the absence of one party. I decided to do so because the tenant has been emailed notice of the hearing date and time to an email address she confirmed as current when contacted by Tenancy Services. Text reminders have also been sent to the mobile number she provided at the same time.

This was a 3-year tenancy which ended after the tenant gave notice.

The landlord reports that the tenant kept the premises clean and tidy. However, there were some significant recurring issues which have led to the landlord making claims for compensation and for exemplary damages.

Exemplary damages are like fines and the Tribunal may award these where there has been an intentional breach and where the intent, effect and public interest mean this is appropriate.

I deal firstly with the claims related to specific cleaning and repair costs. Compensation for cleaning and repairs

Carpet cleaning: the tenant kept dogs at the property, so it is reasonable the carpet is cleaned at her cost. I accept that pets leave residual odour, pet hair and dirt. The property manager says the tenant agreed to pay for this.

Cleaning sun blinds in lounge and bedroom: the blinds were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. Only the cost of cleaning is awarded (not the repairs also done at the time).

Repairs to ground moisture barrier and cleaning under the house: the landlord proved the under-house area was accessed by the occupants although this was not permitted. Photographs show the ground moisture barrier was torn and misplaced by the dogs. Dog waste and one or two items that had been left behind also had to be removed. I award the amount claimed.

Repairs to bath spout: I am satisfied it is more probable than not that the bath spout was tampered with during this tenancy and glued back in to conceal the problem. The first the property manager knew of it was when the next tenants tried to run a bath and water instead ran directly into the wall and under the house as the spout was no longer connected. The bath had been installed as part of a full renovation immediately prior to this tenancy. I award the claim for repairs being the part ($229) and plumber’s invoice ($492.43).

Missing downpipe from carport: a downpipe went missing during this tenancy. I award the cost to replace it.

Repair window latch in bedroom 1 (off kitchen): the property manager reports that the latch pad on a window in this bedroom was missing and the window had been screwed shut by the occupants during this tenancy. I accept the evidence and award the claim to repair this.

All invoices were supplied so the costs are proven. Tampering with smoke alarms

The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.

This is a serious concern because the purpose of smoke alarms is to protect occupants and the property.

It is an unlawful act for a tenant to cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.

Exemplary damages may be awarded for an intentional breach of this obligation up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The evidence proves that there were three known occasions on which smoke alarms in the house were either tampered with or left without a battery:- a. September 2022 – smoke alarm removed from downstairs garage room; b. May 2023 – smoke alarm in downstairs garage room found to have been tampered with resulting in it no longer working; c. May 2024 – smoke alarm in bedroom 1 discovered to have had its long-life battery removed.

Formal breach notices were issued to the tenant on 30 May 2023 and 25 May 2024. The property manager says she also explained to the occupants that tampering with smoke alarms is a serious risk to life and safety.

The breach notices clearly warn the tenant that interfering with smoke alarms is a breach of the tenancy agreement and of the law and can result in a fine of up to $4,000.00.

The tenant did pay for the replacement of two smoke alarms during the tenancy, but this is not a remedy of the problem. The problem is that lives were put at risk on more than one occasion.

The repeat breaches mean I am satisfied the tampering was intentional. It may not have been the tenant herself, but she is responsible for the actions of all people living at the house. This is an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I have decided that it is just to award exemplary damages in this case because:- a. Intent: the occupants intended to stop the alarms working in direct breach of the law, formal breach notices and the property manager’s oral instructions. There was repeated disregard of the property manager’s warnings. It is logical to assume that the reason for this was to allow smoking or vaping inside as there was evidence of smoking at the property. This increases the risk of fire. b. Effect: fortunately, there was not a fire at the house and the property manager is proactive and checked the smoke alarms at every inspection. A house fire can cause loss of life, serious injury and damage to the property. The effect of tampering with these alarms was to put the lives of all occupants and the property at risk. I note that the rooms where the alarms were tampered with were high risk areas as the garage was a confined space under the main house (so fire could have spread upwards to where most people were living) and bedroom 1 was next to the kitchen which is where cooking and appliances may also increase fire risks. c. Interests of landlord: the interests of the property manager and landlords are that all smoke alarms are kept in place and working properly. d. Public interest: there is an interest in emphasising this issue. Health and safety laws are only useful if they are complied with and enforced.

I award exemplary damages of $1,500.00. This is less than half of the maximum as there is no record of prior issues of this kind. I ask the tenant to understand how important smoke alarms are. Unauthorised and exceeding maximum number of occupants

The landlord also seeks a fine claiming that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. Section 40(3) RTA.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00; s40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The tenancy agreement specifies that a maximum number of three people may live in the premises during the tenancy.

Oral evidence from the property manager is that at least two additional adults were most probably living at the property for some of the tenancy and as many as five people were living in the garage room at the end of the tenancy. Photos support this. Breach notices were issued in May 2023 and in May and September 2024. The tenant was asked to provide the details of the additional people but did not do so.

The reasons unauthorised occupants are not allowed are:- a. Insurance – some policies say all permanent occupants must be approved by the landlord. An insurance claim can be declined which can cause a large loss to the landlord. The landlord would then claim this from the tenant. b. Safety and health of occupants – houses are only designed for a certain number of people to live there permanently. For example, living in a garage or overcrowding can increase risks of fires and illness. c. Security of the property – someone with a bad credit or tenancy history might be reluctant to apply to be a tenant. If this is discussed with the landlord in advance, they may agree to approve them as an occupant on the understanding that the tenant is liable for anything the occupant does. It might seem risky to tell the landlord the truth, but it is the best option in the long run.

The breach notices and the photo evidence of people living in the garage mean the landlord has proved this breach was intentional. It is an unlawful act.

I consider the below factors: a. Intent: the tenant may have been wanting to help friends and family by allowing them to live at the house but to do this multiple times over several years shows lack of care for the landlord’s property and disregard for the property manager’s requests that details be supplied. b. Effect: the effect was to increase wear and tear from additional people and to increase the risk to all occupants especially considering that smoke alarms were tampered with. The use of the confined garage room is particularly concerning. The more people there are, the harder it is for the tenant to control their actions. c. Interests of the landlord: are to know who is living at the property so that risks can be managed and insurance stays valid. d. Public interest there is a public interest in tenants understanding that it is important to tell landlords who is living at a rental property. It is not a minor issue. I award $500.00 which is half of the maximum. Bond and suppression

I award the filing fee to the landlord.

The total to be paid means the bond is refunded to the landlord in full and the tenant must pay an additional $2,211.52 to the landlord.

The landlord seeks suppression of name, and this is granted as it has succeeded with the claims and there is no reason to refuse this; s95A(1) RTA.

No suppression orders apply to the name of the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099608 — net $2,211.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$356.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: blinds	$262.51	Cleaning: blinds
Repairs: and cleaning under house	$909.65	Repairs: and cleaning under house
Repairs: replace bath spout (incl part at	$721.43	Repairs: replace bath spout (incl part at
Repairs: replace downpipe	$116.93	Repairs: replace downpipe
Repairs: repair window latch	$57.50	Repairs: repair window latch
Exemplary damages: tampering with smoke alarms	$1,500.00	tampering with smoke alarms
Exemplary damages: unauthorised occupants	$500.00	unauthorised occupants
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,211.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,211.52